Standing Committee A

[Mr. Roger Gale in the Chair]

Homelessness Bill

Roger Gale: I welcome hon. Members to our first sitting. I have due regard for their well-being and comfort and it is in order for them to remove their jackets if they so wish. I cannot speak for my co-Chairman, Mr. Stevenson, as he will exercise his own judgment on such matters, but I ask hon. Members not to incur his wrath. I welcome new Members to the Committee and remind all hon. Members that all remarks should be addressed through me. I prefer to be addressed as Mr. Gale or Chairman and, as on the Floor of the House, the expression ``you'' is not used when speaking through the Chair.

Sally Keeble: I beg to move,
 That, during proceedings on the Homelessness Bill, the Committee do meet on Tuesdays at half-past Ten o'clock and at half-past Four o'clock and on Thursdays at half-past Nine o'clock and at half-past Four o'clock.
 I look forward to considering the Bill under your chairmanship, Mr. Gale. The Committee consists of distinguished and well-informed hon. Members and I look forward to examining the Bill with them. A programme resolution has not been tabled, which reflects the widespread support that the Bill has attracted and our commitment to its timely passage through the House. Several members of the Committee raised a wide range of important points on Second Reading and we now have the opportunity to discuss the Bill in a more detailed and systematic way that will put its provisions clearly into context. We have allowed provisionally for four sittings and we hope that our deliberations will be completed this week. However, we are keen to ensure that the Bill is scrutinised thoroughly and, if necessary, we will sit next week or even beyond. I hope that that finds favour with members of the Committee.

Nigel Waterson: It is a pleasure to be in Committee again under your chairmanship, Mr. Gale. I welcome new Members to the Committee. I do not know if you are familiar with the film ``Groundhog Day'', Mr. Gale.

Roger Gale: As it happens, I am.

Nigel Waterson: Splendid. Chairmen of Committees should have wide cultural interests and I expected no less of you, Mr. Gale. Members of the Committee who
 have not seen the film will have no idea of what I am talking about, but speaking for myself and not, of course, for the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster), I will try to make the proceedings as little like ``Groundhog Day'' as possible. 
 Members of the Committee, other than new Members, will see remarkable similarities between the Bill and what was part II of the Homes Bill. While the prospect of sitting next week is tantalising and attractive, I have every confidence that we shall conclude consideration of the Bill this week in accordance with the sittings motion. I cannot speak for the Liberal Democrats, but some of our points were covered in the Committee that considered the Homes Bill. 
 I wish to take this opportunity to welcome the new ministerial team to the Committee. The fates of their predecessors are many and varied. The hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) has reverted to the Back Benches and is obviously enjoying himself far more there than he was when reading out his ministerial brief. [Interruption.] As my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) said, the hon. Gentleman is reverting to type. The right hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr. Raynsford) has made the enormous leap from being the Minister with responsibility for housing to being the Minister for Local Government, and we wish him well. 
 It was only a few days ago that some of us thought that we would not have the pleasure of these proceedings because, inexplicably, the Bill was not mentioned in the Queen's Speech. However, we are delighted that the Government have made a u-turn, and we are even more delighted that new Members of Parliament will be denied the pleasure of debating what was part I of the Homes Bill and seller's packs. It is sensible to have decoupled parts I and II of the Homes Bill. We are considering an amended version of part I. The Committee could have been spared its labours this week if the Government had taken our advice at the time—the provision would already be on the statute book. 
 I made it clear on Second Reading, as I do now, that, although we have some detailed questions to raise, we wish the Bill a fair wind and look forward to it being translated, albeit belatedly, onto the statute book as soon as is practicable.

Don Foster: Like the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson) and the Minister, I am delighted to be serving once again under your firm but fair chairmanship, Mr. Gale. Just before our proceedings began I muttered that you appear to be a glutton for punishment to go through these debates again, but I can assure you that, like the hon. Member for Eastbourne, I will be doing everything I can to keep our deliberations relatively brief, while ensuring that we do justice to the detailed issues before us.
 Although new Members may not, you, Mr. Gale, will be familiar with my predilection for seeking opportunities to send postcards home to Mrs. Foster. 
 During the passage of the Homes Bill, especially when we debated part II, there were many such opportunities, because the Government, in their infinite and great wisdom, saw merit in many of my amendments. As an assiduous reader of the legislation before us, Mr. Gale, you may be aware that, although I was successful in getting amendments through as a result of my wonderful contributions, some were not accepted by the Government. Mysteriously, some of those unsuccessful amendments have appeared in the redrafted Bill and so before we have even begun, I have seven postcards to write home to Mrs. Foster. I hope that before our brief deliberations are concluded there is the opportunity to write at least a couple more. 
 I was slightly taken aback by the hon. Member for Eastbourne's reference to the wonderful film, ``Groundhog Day''. You have already indicated, Mr. Gale, that you are familiar with the plot, but the comparison is not as clear as the hon. Member for Eastbourne suggests. He says that he is keen for our deliberations to be brief. Why, then, has he seen fit to table amendments that were tabled by Liberal Democrats in our last round of deliberations? The hon. Gentleman took no part in the debates on those amendments, so it is interesting that the Conservatives are picking up some of our proposals. 
 Some amendments tabled by Conservative Members are identical to those that they tabled during consideration of the Homes Bill but subsequently withdrew—not because they hoped that the issues would arise at a later stage, but because they were fully satisfied with the Minister's answers. Having said that they were satisfied, I am surprised that they have chosen to bring those amendments back.

Nigel Waterson: On the second point, it will have crossed the mind of the hon. Member for Bath that the prospect of us winning the vote on some of the amendments was remote, as it probably is now. Also, I make no criticism of the excellence of his draftsmanship, and I am sure that he will agree that all too often amendments helpfully appear from another source and it is a photo finish as to which hon. Member tables them first.

Don Foster: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's explanation. I referred to amendments that the Conservatives had said that they were satisfied not to press. To those who have nothing to do during our deliberations and wish to while away an idle moment, I recommend looking at former amendment No. 67.
 We want to progress as quickly as possible. The sittings motion is sensible and will, I suspect, receive support from all members of the Committee. 
 Question put and agreed to.

Roger Gale: I remind hon. Members that copies of a financial resolution in connection with the Bill are available in the Room. I also remind hon. Members that adequate notice should be given of amendments. As a general rule, my co-Chairman and I do not intend to call starred amendments, including any that are reached during an afternoon sitting. Clause 1 Homelessness reviews and strategies

Clause 1 - Homelessness reviews and strategies

Nigel Waterson: I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 1, line 3, after `authority''', insert
`and its strategic partners, to include registered social landlords and housing co-operatives, landlords of houses in multiple occupation registered with the authority under the Housing Act 1996, members of landlords' forums, and voluntary organisations and other relevant bodies (``strategic partners'')'.

Roger Gale: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 2, in page 1, line 16, at end insert—
 `(4A)The authority shall maintain a list of those organisations which are its strategic partners, which it may modify from time to time.'.
 No. 3, in clause 3, page 2, line 29, after `authority', insert `and its strategic partners'.

Nigel Waterson: It may help if I say that I hope to pursue the same approach to debating amendments as I did in proceedings on the Homes Bill—to flag up the fact that we are keen to have a more discursive debate on amendments and either obviate the need for a stand part debate or considerably foreshorten such a debate. I hope that that will help.

Roger Gale: For the benefit of the Committee, those who have worked with me before will know that generally I am perfectly happy to allow a stand part debate—that is, a broad-ranging debate—at either the beginning or the end of our consideration of a clause, on the clear understanding that we do not try to do both.

Nigel Waterson: I am grateful for that clarification. It may help if I say that I want to deal in some detail with the amendments, but with your indulgence, Mr. Gale, we should also like to make several points in a short stand part debate.

Roger Gale: Order. I made it absolutely plain that the hon. Gentleman may have it one way or another, but not both.

Nigel Waterson: Your patience is legendary, Mr. Gale.
 I begin our proceedings by pointing out a most unfortunate typographical error at column 274 of the report of the proceedings of the previous Committee. A sentence that should have read: 
 ``We can argue how many angels dance on a pinhead for as long as Mr. Gale's patience lasts'', 
has, sadly, become: 
``for as long as Mr. Gale's pension lasts.''—[Official Report, Standing Committee D, 25 January 2001; c. 274.] 
I am sorry to relate that that mistake, which I only spotted in the past couple of days, has been repeated in the Library's otherwise excellent brief on the Bill. Hansard may want to take note, as we would not like the impression to gain ground that you draw a pension, Mr. Gale. 
 The amendments are part of a groundhog-day strategy: we debated the issue previously. Although we had a reasonably good debate, the previous Minister did not feel that we had a good point. I am sure that his successor will be much more willing to be flexible. The hon. Member for Bath will correct me if I am wrong, but I do not believe that we forced the issue to a Division. If we did not, it was probably because we did not expect to win. 
 The amendments relate to strategic partners. The key amendment is No. 1, under which, in addition to the local authority, registered social landlords, co-operatives, landlords of houses in multiple occupation registered under the Housing Act 1996, members of landlords' forums, voluntary organisations and other relevant bodies would be involved in devising a homelessness strategy. I do not claim that the list is exhaustive; if other hon. Members have suggestions, no doubt they will make them during what I hope will be a short debate. It still seems valid to say that, for the strategy to be meaningful in a particular local authority area, it should be specified in the Bill that it includes those other bodies. 
 We and local government in general, irrespective of party loyalties, welcome the new duty placed on local authorities to formulate an overarching homelessness strategy. Organisations such as the Local Government Association have flagged up concerns about whether resources will follow the proposals in the Bill, although it broadly welcomes the proposals, as do we. 
 Recently, the LGA said: 
 ``The LGA supports the proposed new duty on local housing authorities to formulate a homelessness strategy. The LGA would like to see this go further to provide a legal basis for an overarching strategic housing role.'' 
In the context of the relatively broad debate on the amendments, it would be interesting to tease out from the Minister the Government's current thinking on the matter. I make no bones about the LGA's support for the proposals because many of them emanated from good work that the LGA did a couple of years ago. However, it thinks that the legislation could go further. Has that idea been dismissed out of hand, or might it be developed when the provisions in the legislation have bedded down? 
 The LGA continues to say that there is, 
``at present, no legislative duty on authorities to produce a housing strategy other than the requirement in S8 Housing Act 1985 to consider the housing needs and conditions of the district.'' 
However, it also says—this is a key point that I wish to develop—that as more and more transfers of stock take place from local authorities to RSLs, or there is a movement toward arm's-length housing management, it is vital to ensure that housing strategies do not become marginalised. That is why the LGA says: 
 ``A broader duty would place housing strategies on a level playing field with other statutory plans, such as Community Care plans.''
 I recognise that there is tension between that clear point and the broader point that I often hear the LGA make that it is currently subjected to too many plans, and that many plans place an enormous burden on local authorities. Therefore, we must be careful about imposing further duties. However, the LGA supports the provisions and can claim a role in their origin, and it would be helpful if the Minister were to comment on what the LGA says. 
 A further difficulty is the existing problems of housing and homelessness. On Second Reading, we debated the current state of play in the housing world. Shelter commented: 
 ``During the election, a lot of attention was given to improving education and health services. We hear much less about the thousands of families stuck in grotty B&Bs . . . The current crisis-driven approach to homelessness is not working.'' 
I am sure that all members of the Committee are disappointed that housing did not feature as a major issue in the election campaign, despite the efforts of heavyweight housing organisations in the run up to the campaign. That goes for all the major parties. Shelter is right to complain because there is a crisis of the number of people who are ``stuck in grotty B&Bs''. The Prime Minister, no less, in The Big Issue on 3 June said: 
 ``We have to do better . . . I accept we need to do more.'' 
The Committee will be familiar with Government figures, but they bear repetition. They show that homelessness numbers in England have soared by 8,000 over the past three years. There were tetchy arguments in the previous Standing Committee about how those figures should be interpreted, but the only way to interpret them is to say that they are rising—in other words, getting worse. The most recent figures from 15 June show that the number of priority acceptances has risen from 102,410 in 1997 to 110,790 by the end of 2000. The number of homeless households in bed-and-breakfast accommodation has also risen from 4,100 in the first quarter of 1997 to 10,830 in the first quarter of 2001. 
 The growing gap between rich and poor should be overlaid on that picture. The number of empty council properties in England rose by 7 per cent. under the previous Labour Government: there were 81,200 empty dwellings in April 1997, but by April 2000 there were 87,186. However, the construction of new social housing has plummeted by 37 per cent., despite the estimates of organisations such as Shelter that, over the next 10 to 15 years, 100,000 new units of such housing will be needed each year. 
 The Committee will study the proposals and weigh their merits, and I hope that it will improve them, if only marginally. However, they must be seen against a background of serious problems, and of a generally worsening housing situation. 
 Large-scale transfers of stock—another relevant issue—was debated at length by the previous Committee, so I will not discuss it in detail. It was also touched on by the LGA. The rate of those transfers accelerated sharply under the previous Labour Government. The Minister announced that 27 local authorities will be able to proceed with 
 ``32 transfers of all or part of their housing stock to registered social landlords''—[Official Report, 22 June 2001; Vol. 370, c. 10W.] 
and that the programme will involve more than 328,000 dwellings over a two-year period. That is a phenomenal figure, and I should be grateful if the Minister would update us on what the total number of units would be if that was taken into account. I think that it would be in excess of 500,000.

Don Foster: To save the hon. Gentleman from having to wait for the Minister's reply, I can inform him that the total number of units would be 580,000.

Nigel Waterson: That is extremely helpful, as that figure puts the issues into context. If that rate of increase of transfers were to continue during the lifetime of the second Labour Government, which is likely to be four or five years, what do they project would be the total number of transfers by the end of the Parliament, if it runs its full course, and what would be the national proportion of properties in the hands of registered social landlords, versus those in the hands of local authorities? I would be interested to hear the Minister's response to that, and the hon. Member for Bath might also wish to express his views about it.
 The ground is fundamentally shifting under us as we debate such issues, as it did when we debated them previously. The whole picture is changing and, before long, registered social landlords will be the dominant feature on the social housing landscape and local authorities will be much less dominant. Indeed, it has been predicted for some time that we will see the death of the council house during the lifetime of the current Government.

Don Foster: It would strengthen the hon. Gentleman's argument if he knew that the current projection, based on the present rate of transfers, is that by 2004—probably before the end of the Government's term in office—the majority of social housing will be in the hands of registered social landlords. Therefore, it is vital to ensure that mechanisms are in place to ensure that registered social landlords, and the other bodies to which the amendments refer, work closely with the local authorities, which will continue to be responsible for the homelessness strategy.

Nigel Waterson: The hon. Gentleman is right. I am sorry that I have to agree with him, but I am sure that we will find something to disagree about later.
 The landscape is changing. Councils are going out of the housing business, and, although they may not be shouting it from the rooftops, that is the Government's policy. One has only to look at a graph on a wall—rather as the hon. Gentleman has just described—to see where things are going to end. In addition, increasing numbers of rundown council estates in some parts of the country are likely to remain empty, either because of their condition or because of the level of demand in that area, or because people are looking for better accommodation in the private or voluntary sectors. 
 I made a comment in the Committee stage of the Homes Bill, reflecting on a point made by the Institute for Public Policy Research, which is not exactly a Conservative-leaning think tank. The institute used the analogy of the difference between black and white and colour television; it said that a lot of social housing was equivalent to black and white TV, and that demand for it would lessen as time went on.

Andrew Love: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Nigel Waterson: I am happy to give way to the hon. Gentleman. I remember doing so on a similar point in the Committee stage of the Homes Bill.

Andrew Love: Is not the important point the Government's commitment to improve social housing within a 10-year time scale, with the safeguard that it must have tenant approval? Are not those two commitments that were not given by the previous Government?

Nigel Waterson: At the risk of doing the ``Groundhog Day'' routine, in response to a similar intervention by the hon. Gentleman on the previous Committee, I made the point that that is not my party's policy that people should be forced into transfers. We certainly did not fight the last election on that policy and, even if we had, no one would have noticed.
 We endorse the Government's stand. It is becoming a bit of an embarrassment that on a whole range of issues my hon. Friends and I must welcome and endorse what the Government are doing, and I will discuss the fallout from that in a moment. We are happy that this Conservative policy has been grabbed so enthusiastically by the Government and that they are running with it, heading for the touchline. We are cheering them on, on this occasion. If anything, they have been more rapid in this matter than even we would have been, although our policy would have been to speed things up and push ahead as rapidly as possible. 
 The only glum faces among the spectators—to continue the sporting metaphor—are members of the Labour party who belong to the old Labour syndrome. They are unhappy about the transfers because Labour in local government has traditionally seen council housing as a way in which to exercise power and patronage, in a semi-feudal fashion, over people living in a particular area. It is no coincidence, for example, that the late Alderman Andy Cunningham, when he was leader of his council—I forget whether it was Durham or Newcastle—used to present the keys personally to new tenants of council houses. He did that not because he was into public relations, but to emphasise the landlord-tenant—or vassal-lord—relationship that pertained between the Labour-run council and the tenants. That culture is disappearing, and quite rightly so. 
 We will deal with the question of demand for social housing in more detail in our discussion of allocations, but I want to make one quick point and move on. We know that massive differences in demand exist in different areas for social housing. A lady came to my advice surgery a week or so ago. She was a single lady who appreciated that she was low priority on the housing list, but she had been on the list in Eastbourne since 1997. That is an amazing fact, and I am trying to get to the bottom of it. She was not in any sense screaming the place down, but she thought that the time had come to visit her Member of Parliament and find out what was happening. That is a slightly unusual case, even for Eastbourne, but it shows the enormous gulf between our part of the country, in which there is great demand and limited supply and other parts of the country, where council estates, to an increasing extent, will be semi-occupied or wholly-unoccupied. All of that contributes to this problem.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: The one area on which my hon. Friend has not touched is the provision of new social housing. The purpose of large-scale voluntary transfers is to enable the local authority to become a facilitator. However, it is housing associations that, by and large, build new social housing. Does that not further strengthen his argument that it is housing associations, which provide the new houses, that should be involved in the strategy?

Nigel Waterson: My hon. Friend makes the point succinctly. Not only are housing associations unable to build as many new units as they would want—the Minister will be able to grapple with that point in her answer—but, increasingly, the burden is being passed on to them. We would say that that is right—it is Conservative policy—and at least the Government have got it right in one area. It may produce some difficulties within the Labour party, but that is a matter for others to sort out, and the quicker that they do so, the better.
 As my hon. Friend reminds us, there has been a sharp drop, as I have already said, in the number of new units of social housing being built, at a time when private sector housing has been growing fast. It may save time—and save the Minister's officials from dusting off the previous briefing—were I to touch on the three arguments that the Minister's predecessor made against similar amendments. The first argument was that the blanket nature of duties would not fit with what the Minister called the diversity of the RSL sector. That has some merit, because although some housing associations have enormous numbers of units up and down and right across the country, some are large but based in a particular area in which they have their roots, and others are small and do not even appear on the radar screen. At the end of the day, that does not really matter. However big or diverse RSLs are, the future—and to some extent the present—belongs to them. They, and not local councils, will be running social housing. We must get that point across. There is no point in Labour Members or others in the Labour party feeling sad about it; that is the situation, and it is not going to change. 
 The second argument—which had more force—was that the bodies concerned are predominantly voluntary, and, although they are subject to regulation, imposing statutory duties on them is not the same as imposing statutory duties on local authorities. That is one of the parts A and B arguments that we had in the previous Committee—I hope that we find a new terminology during the short life of this Committee—as to whether it is worth including this sort of thing in the Bill or whether it is understood that such bodies will of course be intimately involved in evolving a particular strategy. As a result of the way in which the legislation is currently drafted, that will in large measure depend on the attitude of the local authority. If it is a grumpy, old-fashioned old Labour authority, which resents what is happening and is trying to hold back the tide, it may not involve such bodies or it may do so in a perfunctory way. The fact that such bodies are largely voluntary should not make a difference. They may be voluntary, but they are already treated seriously by the public sector, because, as was conceded in previous debates, they are regulated. They are serious organisations, some of which are extremely large and well run. Some are less so, but, if they have not already grown up, RSLs will have to grow up rapidly. They should be treated as equal partners with local authorities, whose role they are usurping.

Brian Iddon: The hon. Gentleman seems to be rather derogatory about local authorities. Does he not accept that the transfer to registered social landlords from local authorities is down to one word—money? I refer to Treasury rules. If local authorities were able to borrow more money, many of them could perform a service equally as valuable as that performed by the RSLs. I take exception to the fact that the hon. Gentleman used terms such as ``old Labour'' when referring to local authorities. I know many good local authorities. Indeed, my own authority has been a band 1 authority during most of the time that the banding system has been in force. Such authorities are extremely well managed.

Nigel Waterson: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's intervention. It echoes some of the previous discussions about a similar Bill. I am not saying that all local authorities are bad managers of their housing stock, but many have been in the past, which is why successive Governments have favoured such a practice. If the hon. Gentleman considers that the Treasury rules are wrong, he must take up that matter with his Ministers. It is not for me to remind him that they have won a second term in office, but let him and his friends of like mind agitate from the Back Benches on such issues. Let him be in no doubt that such policy is not that of his own Government.
 The third argument advanced by the Minister in January against similar proposals was that they would undermine the strategic responsibilities that were being placed on local authorities. He said that reviews could be carried out in partnership, as part of a multi-agency approach and so on. The then Minister said: 
 ``It is important that local authorities . . . are clear about where the buck stops. Sharing responsibility would simply dilute it''.—[Official Report, Standing Committee D, 25 January 2001; c. 280.] 
That represents a distinction without a difference, if I may respectfully say so. Like it or not, they are now the serious players in social housing. The Minister put forward just another specious argument to exclude them directly from being obliged to be involved in producing such strategies.

Margaret Moran: Will the hon. Gentleman accept that the only organisation in a local area that can have an overview of RSLs and housing associations is the local authority? Many Labour Members wish to strengthen the strategic role of local authorities even beyond that under the Bill. The hon. Gentleman was dismissive about diversity and RSLs. I was a chief executive of a small specialist association that dealt with the housing needs of women. Does not the hon. Gentleman accept that, by placing a statutory duty on RSLs, particularly those small associations that deal with specialist groups, he risks not having the opportunity to ensure that those who would not be accommodated by homelessness groups could also find access to housing? My association helped low-paid women who are essential to London's economy, and such associations may be pushed out of business altogether by such proposals.

Nigel Waterson: I am not saying that there is no force to that argument, but I do not believe that it wins the day. The proposal is not a wacky idea that I dreamt up on two separate occasions, and there is a view among some key players in social housing that it would be a good idea. The hon. Lady and others will remember the Green Pepper campaign that was co-ordinated by the Catholic Housing Aid Society and the Churches National Housing Coalition. It said:
 ``Green Pepper welcomes the requirement for a greater strategic role for local authorities through assessments of local need. However, it is important to emphasise that the applicants themselves, the voluntary sector and faith groups will have a great deal of knowledge to assist in audits of local need.'' 
I am sure that we all agree so far with such a statement. It went on: 
 ``Where local authorities act on their own, they may not always be able to see the full picture.'' 
That is the point that I am trying to make. Others share the concern that local authorities that are not necessarily modern and forward-looking in their thinking may want to act on their own and not take any great notice of what RSLs think, despite the reality that they are, to an increasing extent, the ones who run social housing.

Roger Gale: Before we continue the debate, I remind hon. Members that we should focus on clause 1. I understand that at the start of discussions on a Bill, especially on the first clause, Front Bench Members must set matters in context. However, I would not want those who have never before taken part in such proceedings to get the impression that a Second Reading debate is permissible on every clause.

Don Foster: I note what you have said, Mr. Gale, and intend to stick closely to the debate on clause 1 and on the amendment moved by the hon. Member for Eastbourne.
 I begin by warmly agreeing with his view, expressed both now and in the Committee on the Homes Bill, that it is a pity that clause 1 refers specifically to the local authorities drawing up a homelessness strategy in isolation from their other housing obligations. I share the hon. Gentleman's view, and that of the Local Government Association, that it would have been preferable to require local authorities to produce a single housing strategy that includes all the details required under this legislation. The key issue before us, however, is whether, given the changing social housing situation, clause 1 goes far enough in respect of the strategic partners other than the local authorities which have significant responsibilities for dealing with housing need. 
 The hon. Member for Eastbourne detailed his views on the issue of large-scale voluntary transfer. He argued that that was a Conservative party policy which, egged on by the Conservatives, the Labour Government have taken on board lock, stock and barrel and are implementing even more rapidly than the Conservatives would have done. I was interested in the intervention from the hon. Member for Bolton, South-East (Dr. Iddon), who made the most valid point of all. The rapid movement towards large-scale voluntary transfer is happening because tenants' choices are not made on a level playing field. Local authorities do not have the same rights to borrow money to improve their housing stock that are available to registered social landlords and others. I agree with the hon. Member for Eastbourne that the matter should still be left ultimately to tenants, but if those rights were equalised, local authorities would be able to make a stronger case to those tenants. We would not then see so many authorities adopting large-scale voluntary transfer. 
 The hon. Gentleman may be interested to know that a large number of the large metropolitan authorities that have not so far taken part in the LSVT exercise plan to do so in the next wave. All the evidence suggests that by 2004—as I said in my intervention—most social housing will be managed and run by registered social landlords. 
 When we discussed this issue during our debate on part II of the Homes Bill, Mr. Gale, you will remember that I moved an amendment similar to the ones being moved by the hon. Gentleman. However, my amendments were specifically restricted to including registered social landlords in the development of the homelessness strategy in conjunction with the local authorities and did not, unlike his amendments, include a range of other strategic partners. The most important relationship that must be got right when developing homelessness strategies is the relationship between the RSLs and the local authority. When we debated that matter last time, the then Under-Secretary of State for 
 Environment, Transport and the Regions, the hon. Member for Coventry, North-East (Mr. Ainsworth), said in response to my amendments: 
 ``Registered social landlords are already under a duty to co-operate with local authorities to such an extent as is reasonable. That allows some discretion, but the provision is given teeth by the sector's regulator—the Housing Corporation.''—[Official Report, 7 February 2001; Vol. 363, c. 969.]
 Would it be sensible to accept amendments such as those proposed by the hon. Member for Eastbourne, or can we rely on the Housing Corporation—the sector's regulator—to ensure that registered social landlords are delivering on that matter and, especially, on their prime function of ensuring that housing need is met? 
 As a result of deliberations and subsequent parliamentary questions that I asked, it is clear that the Government are keen for the housing regulator to have more teeth to ensure that registered social landlords meet their obligations. Prior to deliberations in this Committee, I wrote to the new Minister about the matter to ask whether she could reassure me that the Housing Corporation would have sharp enough teeth to ensure that my concerns would be met by changes to the way that it operates, rather than by amendments. 
 There are two routes to achieve that. The Housing Corporation's regulatory code is to be amended, and a new draft has been circulated for consultation. My worry is that although the consultation has led to a number of comments, we do not know whether proposals that would sharpen the teeth of the Housing Corporation will be accepted. In the absence of that knowledge, it is difficult to know whether we should support the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Eastbourne, or if we can rely on the alternative route. 
 My concern about the current code that is out for consultation is that while specific reference is made to the importance of meeting housing need, it does not give that the prominence that I, and other organisations including Shelter, would like. A further worry is that there is no performance indicator in the mechanism for such a key task. Do the Minister and the Government wish to see that issue given a higher prominence in the code? What is the Minister's opinion of a performance indicator? 
 I am grateful for the helpful response to my letter that I received from the Minister on 9 July. In my letter, I raised the second route for beefing up the work of the Housing Corporation with respect to the intended statutory housing management guidance that is to be issued. I asked the Minister when the new draft would be published and consultation would take place. From her helpful response, I understand that the corporation intends to issue the draft statutory housing guidance at the end of this month and that there will be a 12-week consultation period. I am delighted to hear that, and perhaps we should await the responses. Unfortunately, given that we have all agreed that we want a swift passage of the Bill through the House, we will not know the results of the consultation. I would welcome some assurances from the Minister about that matter. 
 As you will have guessed, Mr. Gale, I am in two minds. On one hand, it is sensible to place the work, the role of and the relationship between registered social landlords firmly in the Bill. On the other hand, I have received strong assurances from the Government that the Housing Corporation will have the necessary teeth to ensure that my concerns are met. The Minister's response will be important in helping me to decide how to vote on the issue, should that be necessary. 
 I hope that the Minister is willing to ensure that my letter to her, and her response, are placed in the hands of the Housing Corporation, so that they are aware of my concerns. More importantly, in her reply on 9 July, she stated: 
 ``The Corporation is determined to challenge associations which cannot demonstrate that they are fulfilling their primary function of accommodating people in housing need.'' 
I am delighted that she believes that that is what the corporation will do, but how will the corporation challenge the associations and make sure that they put matters right if they are failing? 
 The decision on which way to vote is difficult, and I look forward to the Minister's reply. Judging by the helpful responses that I have already received, I suspect that she will be able to persuade me.

Sally Keeble: As hon. Members have said, in a sense we are here to complete unfinished business. For some of us, it is our first exposure to the intricacies of the Bill, while others have already made important contributions. The work on the Homes Bill has been invaluable in developing this legislation, and I acknowledge the debt that we owe to my right hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr. Raynsford), and to hon. Members who helped to scrutinise and improve the Bill. I also acknowledge the role played by the hon. Member for Bath in that process.
 The principal aims of the Bill are to set a coherent framework for local authorities to adopt in tackling homelessness, to strengthen the homelessness safety net and to extend choice.

Nigel Waterson: Will the Minister give way?

Sally Keeble: Let me get on a little further, and then I will.

Nigel Waterson: I might forget my point.

Sally Keeble: If the hon. Gentleman thinks that, his point cannot be very important.
 The aims of the Bill have been widely welcomed, although I recognise that, over the next few sessions, we must explore with care its detailed workings. Bearing in mind your guidance, Mr. Gale, not to expound too widely on the background, I will say a little about that before turning to the amendments. 
 The causes of homelessness are not simple and vary from case to case. Rapid economic growth in London and the south-east must surely have contributed to the increased pressure on social housing in London and the surrounding area. We have made a start in dealing with the problem through initiatives outside the Bill. Some causes of homelessness are localised, as recent floods have demonstrated, and others are personal to the individual concerned, as in cases of relationship or family breakdown. 
 Although the Government have set the framework for tackling homelessness, local authorities are best placed to co-ordinate and lead the effort in their local areas, and to initiate preventative measures. That is why the Government's proposals for homelessness reform, set out in last year's housing Green Paper, included a policy of requiring local authorities to take a more strategic approach to tackling and preventing homelessness. Such a strategic approach will be effective only if it harnesses the efforts and activities of all the organisations providing services and assistance to homeless people that operate in an authority's area. A partnership approach is central to our proposals: we require local housing authorities to take a multi-agency and strategic approach to preventing and responding to homelessness. 
 Clauses 1 to 3 of the Bill set out the basis for such a strategy, and require that it be kept under review. Many agencies are involved with people who are homeless, or at risk of becoming so, and they should work together to avoid duplicating services, which might result in the creation of gaps in provision. Local housing authorities should conduct reviews and draw up strategies in partnership with other authorities and agencies, such as social services authorities or departments, health service organisations, and those that administer housing benefit. 
 Registered social landlords will also be central to the development and implementation of homelessness strategies. In some areas, they provide the majority of social housing and, as has been pointed out, the transfer programme is increasing their importance in delivering services to tenants and supporting local authorities in the performance of their statutory duties. 
 Several hon. Members have argued that the Bill should include statutory provisions to require registered social landlords to co-operate with authorities in the discharge of their duties and in the undertaking of homelessness strategies and reviews. I share the concern that has been expressed that registered social landlords should play their part, but I believe that that will be best achieved through revised guidance and enhanced regulation by the Housing Corporation as the statutory regulator of the registered social landlords sector. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Bath for the prominence that he has brought to that issue, and for his acceptance that further statutory obligations are not essential at present and that our mutual objectives can be achieved through regulations. 
 A wide range of other bodies should also be engaged in reviews and strategies, and in the prevention and management of homelessness, including probation services and voluntary organisations that work with young people or with those suffering from mental health problems. Organisations that deal with rough sleepers also have a vital role to play. It is important to highlight that, in the Bill, homelessness includes rough sleeping. As there is not a simple, single cause of homelessness, co-operative approaches must be adopted that require several agencies to work together. Multi-agency co-operation recognises that agencies might have clients in common, and that many of the services that each of them provide can contribute to the prevention and management of homelessness. Multi-agency working is driven by the needs of clients, rather than by those of organisational structures. 
 Before I discuss the amendments, I will deal with some of the issues that have been mentioned, and, in particular, those that were raised by the hon. Member for Eastbourne. He mentioned the increasing size of the problem of homelessness, and, in particular, the increased numbers of people in bed-and-breakfast accommodation. I agree that those figures are too high, but 70 per cent. of the people in bed-and-breakfast accommodation live in London, and the economy and the housing market in that city are special issues that have created unique pressures. As many hon. Members who represent London constituencies have repeatedly said, those problems require London-based solutions. 
 That point underlines the need to ensure that local authorities can draw up strategies that are best suited to their local requirements. The Government have also set up the bed-and-breakfast unit to look at the particular problems of the number of people in bed-and-breakfast accommodation. 
 The hon. Gentleman also raised issues concerning investment. We have substantially increased investment in housing—there has, for instance, been a £3.3 billion increase in the current year. We have introduced a new major repairs allowance of £1.6 billion from 2001-02 to encourage efficient management and proper investment in council housing. I want to stress that that money is not for new-build housing: it is for work on existing council stock. 
 The hon. Gentleman also raised the issue of empty council properties. 
 Problems caused by pressures in different parts of the country call for local solutions. That would provide the best possible result, not just for the use of the properties, but for local communities and local people looking for housing. We have discussed stock transfers. I suspect that reports of the death of the council property have been greatly exaggerated. We are committed to increasing the number of stock transfers to registered social landlords, but only with the agreement of the tenants. Housing authorities can look at other options, but if they are to retain their stock, it should be through best-value assessment. 
 Amendment No. 1 specifies which bodies should co-operate with local authorities. The amendment would unintentionally catch out small landlords and oblige them to participate in homelessness reviews and strategies. Housing co-operatives and landlords of houses in multiple occupation are important housing providers, and some will want to engage with the authority. I expect local housing authorities to welcome willingness to co-operate, and to build on it to achieve real partnerships. Such arrangements cannot be forced, and may be undermined by statutory obligation. 
 My principal objection to the amendment—this re-iterates my predecessor's objections—is that it would undermine the strategic responsibility that we place on local housing authorities. Local housing authorities must undertake homelessness reviews in partnership as part of their housing and wider community responsibilities. It is important that authorities accept those responsibilities and recognise that they are lead responsibilities, shared with dilute accountability and performance. 
 Amendments Nos. 2 and 3 are consequent on amendment No. 1. I would be surprised if local authorities did not keep lists of their regular contacts' telephone numbers, fax numbers, e-mail and personal addresses; but this is not a matter for inclusion in the Bill. We must take a sensible and strategic view on how to establish a robust and coherent framework for reviews and strategies; a framework that allows intelligent offices to run their affairs competently. We shall have to take a sensible view of how much detail is required in the Bill.

Nigel Waterson: If a local authority were to surprise the Under-Secretary by not acting as she expects—although we all agree on how local authorities should act—what mechanism will set them back on the path of righteousness?

Sally Keeble: The Government have mechanisms to ensure that local authorities undertake their statutory duties. It is wrong to assume that many local authorities will not comply with the statutory duties given to them. If management and administrative functions were governed by prescriptive rules set out in the Bill, we would tie the hands of good local authorities without addressing the problems that the hon. Gentleman identifies.

Tim Loughton: I apologise for arriving late, Mr. Gale.
 On the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne, the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions recently remarked that private companies could be sent in when a local authority's homelessness strategy is deemed a failure. Does the Under-Secretary envisage that a local authority might find itself subject to the decisions of a private company that has taken over responsibility for the administration of the strategies that they are being asked to devise, and which we are debating?

Sally Keeble: I do not want to look at new ways of providing housing that involve threats to send in inspectors from private companies. The hon. Member for Bath talked about a way of working and the relationship between the different partners involved in dealing with the problem of homelessness—housing authorities, registered social landlords, housing associations and other agencies. Those are important relationships, and I support them. They must be based on mutual agreement and common respect, and must, at the end of the day, deliver the overall housing strategy, provide individual housing units that ensure that we can get rid of the scourge of homelessness and give people a choice of decent accommodation that meets their needs, whether temporary or permanent.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: The Minister has told us how much investment the Government propose. To put the Government's homelessness strategy into perspective, can she predict how many registered social housing units will be built during the course of this Parliament?

Sally Keeble: I cannot give a number off the cuff. The hon. Gentleman knows about the amount of investment and the money that has gone into repair and maintenance, which will be crucial as regards the number of units that are kept in the current housing stock. We need to reduce the homelessness figures. We must also use all the housing resources at our disposal so that people are properly housed.

Tim Loughton: Will the Minister give way?

Sally Keeble: I am close to concluding and want to deal with the point that the hon. Member for Bath made about the Housing Corporation. My letter to the Housing Corporation is now entirely a matter of public record. I do not want to commit to the Housing Corporation's view of the situation, but undertake to consult with it on the hon. Gentleman's detailed points.
 On that basis, I ask the hon. Member for Eastbourne to withdraw the amendment.

Nigel Waterson: A sense of deja vu overwhelmed me for a moment. It is a bit rich of the Minister to shower all those compliments on the hon. Member for Bath when she talks about minor tinkerings with the Bill. Conservative Members can take responsibility for improving the Bill massively by causing the demise of part I of the Homes Bill. I do not want to go too far into all that, but the Minister and her friends, the Liberal Democrats, have obviously formed a mutual appreciation society.
 A sense of deja vu overwhelmed me for a moment, because we went round and round the houses—if I may use that expression—the last time that we debated these issues, arguing over whether something should or should not be in the Bill: arguments A or B. Having re-read the previous debates and ministerial answers, and having heard the latest ministerial answer, we do not seem to have made much progress. The Minister talks about revised guidance and regulations and the role of the Housing Corporation. Although we shall debate it in more detail later, I am grateful for her confirmation that rough sleeping is included in homelessness, although the Bill does not say so. 
 The point remains: what will happen if a housing authority does not do what the Minister expects it to do and hopes that it will do? When I intervened, she explained the mechanism that would apply if a housing authority were in breach of a statutory duty. The whole point is that we are not putting a statutory duty on housing authorities to carry out consultations, so we are still left with the dilemma posed by the hon. Member for Bath over whether to press the amendment to a vote. 
 I was also interested to hear what the Minister said about bed-and-breakfast numbers, to which we shall no doubt return. The Government must learn that to set up a unit or crown a tsar will not always solve a problem. She indicates that reports of the death of the council house have been exaggerated, but one needs only examine the figures. 
 There comes a point where arguing on the same issue over and over again makes little difference. The Government would be sensible to include the amendments in the Bill, but as local housing authorities will increasingly be controlled by the Conservative party, the problem may go away. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. 
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2 - Homelessness Reviews

Nigel Waterson: I beg to move amendment No. 6, in page 2, line 11, at end insert
 `; and
 (d) the availability of housing advice within the district.'.
 I shall attempt to be brief. We debated this amendment during the passage of the Homes Bill. The amendment would add a fourth requirement to clause 2(1). As subsection (1) stands, local authorities would carry out a homelessness review to look at levels of homelessness, the activities that are carried out and the resources available. They should also look at the availability of housing advice in the district. 
 I do not intend to go over all that again. However, we benefited previously from detailed research carried out by Shelter into the question of housing advice and the massive variations in the quality of that advice throughout the country. People from Shelter told different housing departments that they were single mothers, children or whatever in an attempt to get advice on housing. In one case, a single mother received absolutely dreadful advice that was of no help at all. The only thing that the housing department did right was to give her a customer satisfaction form to fill in on her way out. On the basis of that and other research, there is no doubt that the quality of housing advice often leaves a lot to be desired. 
 In a previous discussion, the then Minister, the hon. Member for Coventry, North-East (Mr. Ainsworth), tried to defuse the argument by talking about a draft of the guidance notes, with which the Committee had been provided. There was much discussion, including comments from the hon. Member for Bath, about whether the draft guidance notes addressed the problem. The then Minister seemed to think that references to sources of data on homelessness dealt with the issue, but seemed to refer to the authority collecting information for its own decision-making purposes. 
 The Minister stated: 
 ``The availability of housing advice, its quality and extent, should and will have to be considered as part of homelessness reviews.''—[Official Report, 30 January 2001; Vol. 362, c. 315.] 
As a bold statement of what we want to achieve—and wanted to achieve before—I can do no better than to quote that. That approach must be right, but I remain unclear about how far we have progressed with the draft code. 
 The Minister concluded his contribution to that debate by asking the hon. Member for Bath: 
 ``Will the hon. Gentleman accept that the notes will be incorporated within the existing code?''—[Official Report, 30 January 2001; Vol. 362, c. 316.] 
He also promised to check the point. 
 We never returned to that question in that Committee. We now have a golden opportunity to return to it and to press the Minister to tell us whether the code of conduct has been improved and tightened up on the basis of evidence from Shelter and others. 
 Many people throughout the country are not receiving the level of housing advice to which they should be entitled. I tabled this probing amendment to give the Minister an opportunity to update the Committee on that point.

Don Foster: The Committee will not be surprised to know that I have tremendous sympathy for the amendment, not least because it is, word for word, the same as amendment No. 67, which I tabled during the passage of the Homes Bill. I was interested when the hon. Member for Eastbourne said, ``We debated this during the passage of the Homes Bill.'' Indeed we did, but not a single member of the Conservative party took part in it. I am nevertheless delighted that the hon. Gentleman has raised the issue so eloquently.

Nigel Waterson: The hon. Gentleman is right that we did not participate in that narrow debate on 30 January, but I spoke at some length—unusually for me—on the Shelter report in another debate, for which I cannot find the reference at the moment. I would not like to mislead the Committee unwittingly by suggesting that this was something that we did not care about.

Don Foster: The hon. Gentleman is right that the issue of the advice given to homeless people was debated on a number of occasions. I clearly remember the lengthy discourse that he gave us on one occasion. If he checks the record, he will find that he was responding to an amendment moved by a Government Back Bencher. I certainly would not wish to suggest that the matter is insignificant.
 As the hon. Member for Eastbourne says, the Government's response last time was that the subject was an argument A case. For Committee members who do not know what it is, argument A is similar to the suggestion that a Christmas tree should be decorated with as many baubles as possible. The problem is that once some baubles have been added, those missed off may seem to some people to be of no importance whatever. That argument has some merit in certain cases. 
 A more important result of that debate was an absolute assurance from the then Minister that the guidance to be issued to local authorities would include examples of best practice, and firm advice to ensure that that best-practice approach was adopted by local authorities. That Committee was told that copies of the revised guidance would be circulated later. My question to the new Minister, the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, the hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Dr. Whitehead), whom we welcome to his place, is this: have the Government adhered to the undertaking given by his predecessor, and will it be possible for Committee members to see the most up-to-date version of the guidance so that we can be sure that those assurances have been followed through?

Alan Whitehead: May I add my voice to that of my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Ms Keeble) to express my pleasure at serving on the Bill? I am pleased to be working with my hon. Friend in supporting the Bill in Committee.
 As has been pointed out, the amendment is similar to—in fact, identical to—that which was moved during the passage of the Homes Bill. In that respect, I am entirely with the hon. Member for Eastbourne in singing the praises of the film ``Groundhog Day''. It is a fine film, second only in its genre to the John Landis classic ``Three Amigos!''. The amendment reminds me of one of those sequences in ``Groundhog Day'' in which the events were slightly different but the outcome was the same.

Nigel Waterson: Like the last general election.

Alan Whitehead: Out of human kindness and sympathy, I did not draw that analogy, but as it is on the record, I am happy to endorse it.
 Effectively, the clause is a transfer from Bath to Eastbourne. If that were a football transfer, it would not raise much money. Nevertheless, the arguments raised during debates on the Homes Bill are pertinent to today's discussion. It might be helpful if I briefly set out the aims of the clause. 
 Hon. Members may note that the clause already contains a number of broad points on guidance. It sets out the matters that local housing authorities must address when conducting a homelessness review. It specifies the purpose of such a review and it provides for the results of the review to be made public. The clause sets out the key steps that authorities should take to acquire reliable information and a sound understanding of the essential bases for formulating an effective strategy to resolve homelessness. 
 Subsection (1) specifies that a homelessness review 
``means a review by the local housing authority of— 
 (a) the levels, and the likely future levels, of homelessness in their district''. 
The authority must also review the activities carried out for the various purposes set out in clause 2(2). The review must include a review of the resources available to the authority, the social services authority for their district, other public authorities, voluntary organisations and other persons for the various purposes set out in clause 2(2). 
 The purposes of homelessness reviews are set out in subsection (2). They are: 
``preventing homelessness in the district . . . ; 
 (b) securing that accommodation is or will be available for people in the district who are or may become homeless; 
 (c) providing support for people in the district— 
 (i) who are or may become homeless; or 
 (ii) who have been homeless and need support to prevent them becoming homeless again.'' 
According to clause 2(3), once a review has been completed, the authority must provide for 
``the results of the review to be available at its principal office for inspection at all reasonable hours, without charge, by members of the public''. 
The authority must also provide 
``(on payment if required by the authority of a reasonable charge) a copy of those results to any member of the public who asks for one.'' 
Taken together, those requirements provide a firm basis for drawing up homelessness strategies. They are the basic steps required. Individual authorities, having taken account of their local circumstances, may want to broaden the reviews to cover other matters, and I would encourage them to do so. 
 The amendment covers an important issue and it is good that we have another opportunity to discuss it. We intend that the provisions should do more than address the consequences of homelessness; they should help to avert it. Prevention, through advice and assistance, and through multi-agency working, will be an important aspect of all homelessness strategies and reviews. The availability, quality and extent of housing advice should all be considered as part of a homelessness review. 
 However, it is not necessary to list in the Bill every issue that should be addressed in a review. I take the view that housing advice falls clearly under clause 2(1)(b) if it is read alongside clause 2(2)(c)—the requirement that reviews must consider the activities carried out for the purpose of providing support for people in the district who are, or may become, homeless. We will, however, ensure that that is fully addressed in the revised code of guidance. 
 We will, however, ensure that that is fully addressed in the revised code of guidance. To answer the question asked by the hon. Member for Bath, I have taken note of the passage at column 316 of Hansard, in which my predecessor as Minister said that concerns would be incorporated in revised guidance. I understand that that revised guidance has not yet been finalised, but once it is available I shall ensure that hon. Members are given it as soon as possible.

Nigel Waterson: Would it not have made enormous sense to make the redraft guidance available to the Committee? As the Minister acknowledged, the issue was flagged up before the election. Civil servants have a break from politicians during a general election. Surely the guidance could have been prepared. Will it be available before the end of the Committee stage, or at least before the Bill completes its passage through the House?

Alan Whitehead: The hon. Gentleman says that the guidance could have been completed during the election, but, as he reminded the House before the election, his party was about to become the Government, and I am not sure that it would have been appropriate for civil servants to work hard on guidance that related to a Bill that had at that stage fallen, when, according to his best estimates, his party was about to become the party of Government. Unfortunately for him, that event did not come to pass—

Nigel Waterson: The Minister cannot get away with that. Civil servants were clearly working on some parts of the Bill, because, despite its non-appearance in the Queen's Speech, it popped—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Bath must contain his excitement. As the Bill popped up as the first of the Session, that explanation will not wash.

Alan Whitehead: The hon. Gentleman should recognise that a proper protocol applies during elections. If at that point no signs suggested that the Bill would proceed, it would have been improper for the civil service to assume that the Labour party would win the general election and would immediately reintroduce the Bill to Parliament and complete the revised guidance relevant to that Bill. In saying that my explanation will not wash, the hon. Gentleman widens the boundaries of proper civil service behaviour and of what I am sure he and I would agree is the right action to take.

Nigel Waterson: I do not want to incur your wrath, Mr. Gale, but someone somewhere amended the Bill. The Bill is not word for word the same as part II of the Homes Bill. Is the Minister saying that no such work was done during the general election campaign or since the previous Bill fell and that all the work has been done since Labour won the election? If so, I accept his assurance immediately.

Alan Whitehead: That is my understanding. I am not privy to the detailed day-to-day workings of the civil service, and I cannot categorically say that no civil servant gave—

Nigel Waterson: You are a Minister.

Alan Whitehead: To respond to that sedentary intervention, I was not privy to the daily workings of the civil service during the last election but was out on the road trying to get elected, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman was.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Will the Minister give way?

Roger Gale: Order. The argument is becoming circular and far removed from the amendment. It is time to move on.

Alan Whitehead: Thank you, Mr. Gale. I am delighted to accept your guidance.
 The issue is whether the proposal set forth in the amendment should be contained in the Bill or in guidance. During consideration of the Homes Bill it was suggested that some elements were already contained in the draft guidance and would be more fully placed in the revised guidance. The Bill itself strongly infers that local authorities should look for the availability of housing advice within their districts. Therefore, provided that we give an assurance—as we have already done—that the issue will be fully addressed in the revised guidance, it is reasonable that we should ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the amendment.

Don Foster: The hon. Member for Eastbourne was rightly chided for pursuing a particular avenue of debate. That must have been right because it was your ruling, Mr. Gale. However, the hon. Gentleman asked a perfectly reasonable question about whether the revised guidance would be available at some stage during the passage of the Bill through both Houses of Parliament. Will the Minister at least assure us that an opportunity will be given to see that draft guidance before it becomes impossible to raise the concerns that we have been discussing?

Roger Gale: Order. Before the Minister responds to that intervention, I should make the Chair's position plain. The Minister cannot be responsible for what a Government Department was doing during an election when he was not a Minister in that Department. That is why I felt that the argument was becoming circular. However, the Chair takes the view that, when guidance notes are issued in relation to a Bill, those notes should be made available to Committee members as soon as practicably possible.

Alan Whitehead: Thank you, Mr. Gale. As far as I know, the revised guidance will be available before the Bill's passage through the House is completed. I would like to ensure that I can make the revised guidance available on that understanding, so I shall write to the hon. Members concerned. That is my understanding of the situation.

Nigel Waterson: Well, it took a while to get there, but it would be churlish not to thank the Minister for his remarks. We may have a much shorter debate on that basis. I do not want to reopen the argument, but it would have been nice if the point had been thought of, as it was clearly flagged up in the previous debate. Otherwise, what point do these debates serve—even debates on previous versions of Bills?
 I am happy to accept the Minister's assurance that draft notes will be available before completion of the Bill's passage through the House. It is probably optimistic to expect them during the course of this week, although that would be nice. It seems that we shall not return to consideration of the Bill until after the summer recess, so that should give abundant time to produce draft notes. If we could have them at some time during the summer recess—though perhaps not in August—that would be helpful. 
 I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. 
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Don Foster: I beg to move amendment No. 14, in page 2, line 11, at end insert
 `; and
(d) the number of empty properties in their district.'.

Roger Gale: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 15, in clause 3, page 3, line 12, at end insert—
 `(5A) In formulating a homelessness strategy the authority shall make specific reference to— 
 (a) the extent and nature of empty housing and vacant property within their district across all sectors and tenures; 
 (b) targets for the re-use of such properties for residential purposes; and 
 (c) a strategy for action to achieve the targets set out in paragraph (b) above, including action by any public authority, voluntary organisation or other body or person whose activities are capable of contributing to the achieving of these objectives.'.

Don Foster: All members of the Committee are well aware that helping homeless people is not only a matter of finding a roof to put over their heads; those people need a wide range of additional services and support. Nevertheless, finding a place for them to live is important. In an earlier deliberation, we discussed the number of affordable houses being built, so we should now consider other resources that might be available to provide such accommodation.
 One obvious resource is the large number of properties that currently stand empty. All Committee members will recognise that the figures are stark. There are well over 100,000 homeless families in the country, yet we have a staggering 750,000 empty properties. Clearly, when tackling homelessness, it makes a great deal of sense that the homelessness review and strategy should incorporate methods to bring empty homes back into use. A range of possibilities could achieve that, and it would be beyond the scope of even your patience, Mr. Gale, if I went through a list of those. However, hon. Members will be aware of many possible strategies that could be adopted by central Government and local government. 
 The Empty Homes Agency estimates that only half of local housing authorities currently have a strategy for effectively bringing empty homes and properties into use, which is why I moved amendment No. 14. Nevertheless, I am conscious that amendment No. 15, which was tabled by the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney), is also being considered and I believe that it is far preferable and more satisfactory than amendment No. 14. While I have had the opportunity to introduce the issue, I would hate to steal the hon. Gentleman's thunder. I hope that I can withdraw my amendment and that the hon. Gentleman will have the opportunity to press his to a Division.

David Kidney: I thank the hon. Member for Bath for his generous tribute. I would not support his amendment, so he is kind to say that he would support mine instead.
 Amendment No. 15 suggests that a specific reference to the problem of tackling empty homes in this country should be in the Bill. It contains a reference to local authorities adopting targets for reducing the number of empty homes, which is present to give the amendment teeth—it is meaningless without that. 
 I shall give a dozen reasons why the amendment should be in the Bill once it has completed its passage through both Houses. As the hon. Member for Bath said, nearly 750,000 properties stand empty yet, every year, local authorities accept over 100,000 families as homeless. We owe it to those people to try everything possible and to use all the available resources to help them find homes to live in. It makes sense to make the best use of existing resources. There are homes standing empty that could be used for people to live in. There would be no problems of finding money to build houses or of shortage of land—the houses are waiting to be used. 
 If we took a poll of public opinion anywhere in the country and under any conditions, we would find that they overwhelmingly want empty houses to be used, especially ahead of building new houses near them. The public would support the provision. When we debated the Bill on Second Reading, 10 hon. Members referred specifically to the need to do something about homes that stand empty. That represents a sizeable proportion of the hon. Members who took part in the debate. 
 Despite the considerable successes of the Empty Homes Agency, to which the hon. Member for Bath also referred, there has not been a noticeable reduction in the number of properties that stand empty. The Empty Homes Agency has encouraged local authorities around the country to adopt strategies to deal with empty homes in their areas, and has had the backing of Ministers. However, only about half of all authorities have adopted a strategy that the Empty Homes Agency reckons is worth the paper on which it is written. Conversely, half of all authorities left to do this voluntarily have not bothered to do it. That is why a specific reference in an Act of Parliament is needed to make the others comply. 
 The next reason is that an empty homes strategy is enormously complementary to the Bill's purpose of dealing with the problems of homelessness. Another reason is that it would help us to focus attention on the solutions to ending the scandal of empty homes, and would therefore give people the impetus to think about how the total number of empty properties could be reduced. A further reason is that solutions are needed to make a difference, because, despite the successes of the Empty Homes Agency and the fact that Ministers have backed its work, the number of properties standing empty stays stubbornly at about 750,000 every year—it may increase a little one year and decrease a little the next, but Members do not have to worry about looking up the latest figure each time they debate the issue because 750,000 remains pretty close to the mark. 
 The Empty Homes Bill, which I introduced during the 1999 Session, suggested solutions such as giving local authorities the power to vary the council tax payable on empty properties and extending slightly the power of compulsory purchase to allow local authorities to take up empty properties, even against the wishes of the owner who would prefer that it stood empty. The beauty of that Bill, I always felt, was that, even then, it required local authorities to have an empty homes strategy. The exercise of the powers to reach those solutions was tied to the strategy. Therefore, the purpose of the strategy is therefore to focus the powers which I submit a local authority should have in order to tackle the problem. 
 The ninth reason of my dozen reasons is that residents who live in streets and estates where properties stand empty would will us to do something about such properties. I know of areas with lots of empty properties that blight the estates or streets where people live. For the astonishment of Committee members, however, I shall refer to an article that appeared last week in my local newspaper, the Staffordshire Newsletter, under the headline, ``Pensioner to put `eyesore' home on the market.'' It tells the story of a well-built 1930s house that has stood empty for more than 20 years in an attractive part of Stafford, apparently as a kind of monument to a deceased husband. The local authority is powerless to do anything about it, and the residents are tearing their hair out. 
 The next reason is that all those homeless people who walk past empty homes in their homeless wanders would want us to do everything that we can to make those homes available for use. Craig Whitlock, a homeless person, came to my surgery on Saturday and told me that, during the time that he has been homeless, he has witnessed the deaths of 12 of his homeless friends while waiting for the local council to help by providing a property to live in. 
 My penultimate reason is that the Bill would be better if the amendment were included. To complete my dozen reasons, and to try to attract the Minister's attention and support for my amendment, this would be a popular measure that would enhance the Minister's reputation—and make her popular, too—were she to agree to the amendment. Given such a compelling final reason, I hope that she will say something helpful in response.

Tim Loughton: I want to speak briefly to amendment No. 15 tabled by the hon. Member for Stafford, but not without wholeheartedly agreeing with the hon. Member for Bath that Liberals do not necessarily make the best amendments. We are minded to support the wise words of the hon. Member for Stafford. I commend him for his work during the previous Parliament on his Empty Homes Bill.
 We are all aware of the Empty Homes Agency, a worthwhile organisation that was set up under the Conservative Government in 1992. It undertakes exceedingly helpful and useful work. It introduced the London empty homes hotline and it places emphasis on converting commercial buildings to residential homes. Given all the pressures on green-field space for new house building, it seems absurd that only about 13 per cent. of new residential homes are the result of the conversion of mainly commercial buildings, which we certainly support. 
 We have only to read the Empty Homes Agency report to see the cycle of decline that leaving homes empty brings about. It is not just the fact that they are eyesores or the cost that is estimated at about £7,018 a year to keep a house empty, but the general degradation of an area that ensues as a result of a run-down house becoming a dumping ground and a target for graffiti, young kids, drugs and so on. Such conversions must be a priority. Given our previous discussions on the Homes Bill, I am amazed that the Government have not included in the Bill as part of their homelessness strategy a measure to tackle empty homes.

David Kidney: Before the hon. Gentleman leaves the work of the Empty Homes Agency, I should like him to mention its great talent for shining a light on those who allow properties to stand empty. The agency's most recent report refers to a special dishonours award, and I shall not embarrass those at the NHS trust to which it alludes who left property standing empty opposite the building in which it held a meeting to discuss the problems of accommodation for its staff. My amendment would help local authorities to replicate the practice of shining a light on bad practice throughout the country.

Tim Loughton: That is absolutely right. There are two sides to the Empty Homes Agency. Last year, I was asked to speak at its annual conference in London when it gave awards for best practice and disawards for worst practice. It cited practical examples of how often small groups—not great authorities—came up with imaginative ideas and advice on how to convert eyesores into liveable residential dwellings.
 The Government have had a second chance to deal with the homelessness problem, and I am amazed that they have not included a proposal about empty properties in the Bill, because the situation has become worse. The number of people who are homeless has increased. At the end of last year, 71, 890 people had been placed in temporary accommodation at a cost of £375 million at a time when the number of empty properties had increased, too—the general ballpark figure being 750,000. I am talking about a time when economic activity was high and money was likely to be around to convert empty housing into liveable housing, but that has not been happening. The urgent need for empty properties to be dealt with has heightened, yet there is no mention of that in the Bill. 
 When we discussed the subject in connection with the previous Bill, I talked about my experience in Sheffield. I was a parliamentary candidate in Sheffield, Brightside in 1991 but, alas, I failed to unseat the incumbent, who is now the Home Secretary. My photo call was in a street in Sheffield, Brightside that was virtually full of empty boarded-up houses with weeds growing in the roads. About a year ago, in my new position on the Opposition Front Bench, I visited the same street in Sheffield and had a photograph taken. The only difference was that a few more houses were boarded up, more tiles were missing from the roofs and the tarmac road was indistinguishable from a grass road. That is a testimony to 50 years of Labour government in Sheffield that has not been helped by the past four years of a central Labour Government. Those empty houses added to the degradation of the area at the same time as green fields on the outskirts of Sheffield were concreted over for new, largely executive housing, so the problem is getting worse. 
 I fear that the Minister will not seize her hon. Friend's amendment with enormous alacrity, as she should. What are the Government doing about the empty housing problem? We were promised legislation following the pre-Budget report last year, but what resulted was a ``tinkering on the edges'' pledge about reducing taxes on properties that had been continuously empty for more than 10 years. That involves only a small number, because of the difficulty of proving that a property has been empty for such a long time. 
 We were also promised stamp duty exemptions on properties in areas of deprivation, which would help with the problem of homelessness and could be targeted at empty homes. We were promised that by April, but still we do not have the definitions of where those areas of deprivation are or where the tax reliefs are supposed to apply. Has the Minister any hot news as to when we can expect those definitions? 
 Conservative Members want to see a more concerted effort at homesteading, so that a larger proportion of the three-quarters of a million empty homes can more urgently be taken over by young homeless people, or couples, who have little prospect of getting on the first rung of the housing ladder. In return for zero or reduced rents or shared ownership, those people would spend their resources, with grants and help, on doing up those empty properties to make them habitable. The Government have made no mention of homesteading. They have been silent on the issue, even though it would be a practical solution to the homelessness problem. 
 In his intervention, the hon. Member for Stafford mentioned the worst offenders list. The Government must take a lead and, literally, put their own house in order. The NHS and the Ministry of Defence are two of the worst offenders—approximately 11 per cent. of their properties are empty. That is more than twice the level that one might expect from the private sector, despite all the stuff that we hear from the Government about the problem of affordable housing for key public service workers, especially in my part of the world, in the south-east and in London. What initiatives have the Minister or her predecessor taken to make some of that empty housing available as affordable housing to key public service workers? When will the Government lead by their own example? 
 The amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Stafford is long overdue and should have been included in the Bill. We have heard a lot of waffle and seen little action from the Government in tackling the homelessness problem and it has been left to agencies to do something about it. Given the revelation that, at best, a half of housing authorities have regard to an empty homes strategy as part of their homelessness strategy, this debate will send a strong signal and give a clear lead that dealing with empty properties is a fundamental part of dealing with homelessness. The strategy already exists—there is no need to wait for the funds to build new houses. 
 The Minister cannot even tell us how many new houses will be built. It is rather an admission that the new Under-Secretary of State with responsibility for housing has no idea—she is probably being given some in-flight refuelling—how many houses we can expect from the Government, given their appalling record of the reduced number of houses built in the past four years. Conservative Members thoroughly commend the hon. Gentleman's amendment, and we hope that he is not intimidated by his Whips on the Front Bench into wimping-out by withdrawing it.

Sally Keeble: The two amendments touch upon an extremely important issue. There is an obvious contradiction in having large numbers of homeless people and large numbers of empty properties. It is the intention of the Government—and, I believe, most local authorities—to ensure that the lowest number of properties are empty at any given time. The amendments seek to focus authorities' thoughts on such matters.
 As I discuss the amendments, I shall deal with some of the general points that were made by hon. Members, all of which are pertinent to the effort to grapple with the difficulties of housing homeless people and dealing with empty properties. Everybody involved in housing at the present time has to address those problems. 
 There are two reasons why I do not support amendment No. 14, which was tabled by the hon. Member for Bath. First, in many authorities' areas, the number of empty properties can swiftly and sharply fluctuate and, therefore, the figures can rapidly become outdated. Secondly, we should not be overly prescriptive with regard to instructing local authorities about the content of their strategies. That should be determined by them in the light of their circumstances, such as the number of homeless people in their areas and the type and nature of their housing stock. They should be allowed to exercise their best judgment about how to deal with the difficulties that they face. The most important elements of the strategy are covered by the legislation; further elements might be considered as guidance—and an instruction that relates to the number of empty properties will certainly be considered. 
 Similar concerns are raised, and similar ground is more explicitly covered, in amendment No. 15, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford. I acknowledge my hon. Friend's lengthy and strong track record of action with regard to the issue, and I agree with him that local authorities should make every effort to bring empty homes back into fruitful use. We encourage them to do that through the housing investment programme, and we expect authorities to demonstrate their commitment to tackling the problem of empty properties by having a clear strategy that matches resources to the scale of the problems in their districts. Authorities are also required to report the number of homes in their area that have been empty for more than six months and that have been brought back into use as a consequence of their actions. 
 I expect the homelessness strategy to address the extent and nature of empty housing and vacant properties in an authority's district. However, the ways in which that is employed to address homelessness will vary across the country—as will the cost-effectiveness of the different possible solutions. Issues such as empty properties require different strategies and approaches in high-demand and low-demand areas. I am sure that all Committee members can recount anecdotes about the empty properties problem. One of my first actions as Minister responsible for housing was to travel extensively, particularly around the north of England, to gain a clear understanding of the key factors with regard to the problem of empty properties. Local authorities should focus on the issues that are important in their areas so that they can take the appropriate local action.

Tim Loughton: I agree with the Minister's point, but it is the same as the point made by the hon. Member for Stafford in phrasing his amendment. Local authorities should not be confronted with prescribed ways to deal with empty homes; they should be allowed to deal with the extent and nature of empty housing and vacant property within their particular districts across sectors and tenures.

Sally Keeble: I am grateful that the hon. Gentleman has made that point, as it gives me another chance to address the matter. The central issue concerns whether such instructions should be included in the Bill or in guidance. The Bill should include only matters of a strategic nature: it should not be overly prescriptive about problems that might vary from one part of the country to another. For example, bed-and-breakfast accommodation is a major issue, but in the north of England there are major—and sometimes more complex—issues concerning empty properties.
 I will borrow the example that was offered by the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) to illustrate to him the complexity of the problems. He mentioned that, when he visited Sheffield, he noticed that there were many empty properties in the city, but executive homes were being built in the green belt. There is no possibility of getting people who are thinking of buying an executive home in a nice country area to move into a tower block in the middle of a town; that is not remotely on the cards. Real thought must be given to quality and choice, which apply as much to areas of high demand as low demand, however much pressure there is on housing stock.

Don Foster: I accept that what the Minister said may be the case in certain circumstances. However, even with her limited experience in the post but from a wider experience of life, the Minister will be aware of a large number of converted tower blocks and warehouse conversions that are now occupied by people who have paid large sums to live there. I do not believe that the general thrust of her argument holds up strongly.

Sally Keeble: From my wide experience of life, the most spectacular example of tower blocks being converted and brought into use is in Wandsworth. Those were not used to rehouse homeless people, but were sold off at high prices. If we are to tackle the deep-seated problems of homeless people, we must carefully examine solutions that include the nature of the property and the people who are homeless. Decisions about that are best made by the local authority, and all suggestions for the way forward can be made in clear guidance more properly than in the Bill. That includes the matter of homesteading, which some authorities are examining. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham is correct that I have been given in-flight fuelling, and I can tell him that the target is to provide at least 100,000 new or improved homes for low-cost renting or home ownership. The Housing Corporation's target is 63,700 homes. Perhaps more importantly in response to his point, the NHS starter homes initiative is for around 10,000 key workers.
 Authorities should take a view about what is important to their area, and it does not do to make primary legislation too prescriptive. I am not persuaded that every issue that should be addressed in a review or strategy should be listed in the Bill. However, we will ensure that that is fully addressed in the revised points of guidance, which I am sure deals with the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford.

David Kidney: My hon. Friend says that guidance will deal with the matter and she has pointed out how in the past, the Government have given guidance to local authorities about strategically tackling the problem of empty homes. There has even been the stimulus of linking that to local authorities' housing investment programme allocations. What does the Minister think of the Empty Homes Agency's assessment that half of all authorities do not have an empty homes strategy? That is the best argument for why a measure is needed in the Bill.

Sally Keeble: I understand that while housing authorities produce housing strategies, not all necessarily produce homelessness strategies. Placing the duty on them to produce such strategies, with guidance for how that should be carried out, is the best way to ensure that local authorities seriously examine the matter of empty properties. That is a particular pressure point in some parts of the country, although not in others.
 On that basis, I ask that the amendment be withdrawn.

Don Foster: We have had a useful debate. I especially commend the contribution of the hon. Member for Stafford and also that of the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham. The both raised the importance of the issue and the increasingly urgent need to tackle it. The Minister's response is unsurprising. It is similar to those we heard in previous debates from others who occupied his post. Our good friend argument A is, on this occasion eloquently expressed by the Minister, that only significant strategic issues should be specified in the Bill, and that everything else should be covered in guidance. Tackling the huge problem of empty homes and linking that with dealing with the significant problem of homelessness is a strategic issue that deserves to be specified in the Bill.
 I intend to ask the leave of the Committee to withdraw the amendment. However, I hope that the hon. Member for Stafford does not believe that if he presses his amendment and, as I hope, receives the support of many members of the Committee, a hole will open up beneath him and the sky will fall down. I assure him that it will not and that, if he is prepared to press his amendment, he will be surprised by the large number of people who will support him in achieving something for which he has long fought. Today he has the opportunity to deliver it, and we wish him well. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. 
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Roger Gale: If the hon. Member for Stafford wants to press amendment No. 15 to a Division, he should tell the Chair at the appropriate time, which will be when we discuss clause 3, not now. He may then move his amendment formally, which I would be prepared to accept, but that is, of course, a decision entirely for him.

Tim Loughton: I beg to move amendment No. 7, in page 2, line 19, at end insert—
 `(d) providing for the welfare of animals under the control of homeless persons.'.
 You, Mr. Gale, may have done so before I arrived—as I said, I was attending an Adjournment debate—but the last time we discussed a similar amendment, you disclosed an interest as it related to animals, and you may wish to do so again. If you do not, I shall continue. I, however, disclose an interest.

Roger Gale: Order. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who is absolutely right. I had not spotted the amendment, but it is well known that as the chairman of an animal welfare organisation I have an interest in homeless people and pets. I do not recall that causing a problem for the Committee when we discussed the matter previously, and I trust that it will not do so this morning.

Tim Loughton: Thank you, Mr. Gale. I thought it a good opportunity to re-emphasise your commitment to animal welfare. As you know, I have a great deal in common with you, and I disclose an interest too, although it is much more humble than yours. I support a charity in my constituency—an organisation called Canine Partners for Independence—that has been adopted by the mayor of Worthing. It is a highly worthwhile organisation that trains dogs to perform duties in the home for people with disabilities. It does truly remarkable work and is desperately short of money. Anyone who would like to donate can ask me for the details afterwards.
 As we discussed during consideration of the previous incarnation, the Homes Bill, we believe that homelessness reviews should mention animal welfare considerations. Such considerations can take two forms—homeless people who are rough sleepers, whom many of us see every day, who often have dogs with them, and people on homeless lists, such as elderly single people or families, who have a pet as part of their family from whom they are loth to be separated. In both cases, because of the framing of homelessness priorities and a shortage of accommodation, those people find themselves in a less beneficial place in the queue to secure accommodation. 
 In 1991, my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young), was the Minister with responsibility for housing. His triumphs in reducing the number of rough sleepers in London from 1,000 to 286—as it was estimated when the programme was completed in 1996—are well documented. During his tenure, a hostel was set up in east London that dealt specifically with rough sleepers who had accompanying pets and it proved a great success. The previous Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for Coventry, North-East gave us examples of where that initiative has been replicated in other cities. 
 Rough sleepers may be loth to go into the hostels provided because they do not want to be separated from their pets. The providers of such accommodation must make a value judgment as to whether the dog—as it usually is—is an essential attachment to the rough sleeper or whether it is there for business reasons, because a hungry-looking dog pulls at the hearts of potential donors. 
 A more widespread problem involves people on the homeless register who are offered an 11th floor flat in a tower block, for example, who may have a dog that they regard as a companion and part of the family. Such cases may involve families or, more likely, a widow or widower who has replaced a human partner with a canine partner. It can cause enormous distress if the accommodation offered specifically excludes pets. Similarly, there is little prospect of people being able to take a pet into bed-and-breakfast accommodation. 
 Homelessness reviews should include recognition of the problems of rough sleepers or people who find themselves homeless through no fault of their own and who are attached to pets and become trapped in a cycle of homelessness. When I last raised the matter, the Minister's predecessor said in his closing response to me: 
``local authorities should cover this issue, along with others, in the guidance that they draw up as part of their strategy.''—[Official Report, Standing Committee D, 30 January 2001; c. 319.] 
He did not think that it should be built into primary legislation. 
 In keeping with the theme of our discussion about guidance, if the Minister is not minded to accept our amendment—as I have a hunch is the case—perhaps he or she could give some indication as to the possible success of ensuring that local authorities include in their guidance some recognition of the problems that can be posed by homeless people who have pets, and who are therefore excluded from the various homes that are offered.

Alan Whitehead: I cannot declare an interest in the amendment because my cat ran away during the general election. [Hon. Members: ``Why?''] It could not stand Conservative canvassers knocking on the door. It is a matter of considerable personal grief. I am sure that the Committee does not wish to dwell too deeply on the matter, so I hope that it will be passed by.
 I am indebted to the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham for his brevity. He has a fetching pair of watches on his cufflinks, so each time that he scratches his ear he must be aware of the passing of time. I am also aware that the issue is important, although some people may not believe that it is the most essential strategic subject in connection with homelessness. The amendment would place on local authorities, as part of their statutory duties to undertake homelessness reviews, a specific requirement to review provision for the welfare of animals under the control of homeless persons. It is true that a number of homeless people have pets and are very attached to them. It is important that local authorities endeavour to ensure that those placed in temporary accommodation can keep their pets, as far as that is possible and reasonable, but whether there should be a statutory requirement to do so is another matter. 
 I know that such matters are of particular concern to many elderly people and it is important that local authorities make proper provision and treat the issue with sensitivity. Attachment to pets is often a substantial barrier to help people get off the streets and several local authorities have made specific provision to deal with it, such as providing kennels with night shelters or removing the ``no animals'' clause from registered social landlord tenancy agreements. As the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham said, in the previous debate mention was made of hostels and move-on accommodation in Leicester, Manchester, London and elsewhere. Such provision has, on occasions, proved important in ensuring that people move from the streets. 
 However, that is different from whether it is appropriate to place such a requirement in primary legislation or to give it more prominence than many other important matters that local housing authorities will have to deal with when drawing up their homelessness reviews. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising the issue. I fully recognise his concerns, but I believe that it is a matter that can be dealt with through guidance, as is our intention. The draft guidance on homelessness reviews and strategy will be issued towards the end of October, soon after Parliament returns from the summer recess, and will thus be available before the Bill has completed its passage through the House. On that basis, I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the amendment.

Tim Loughton: I am grateful to the Minister. I could be impertinent and repeat the comments that I made to his predecessor last time we discussed the matter, but I am pleased that he has acknowledged its importance, that it has been taken seriously and that the message will go out to local authorities. However, as with so much else that we have discussed this morning, we wait with bated breath for guidance procedures if they are to be issued before the end of October—hopefully, before the Bill has been discussed on Report and Third Reading. In giving us the date, I hope that the Minister is guaranteeing that we shall have sight of the draft guidance before the Bill leaves this place, so that we can have the opportunity, if some of his promises are not down in black and white in the guidance, to take them up with him on the Floor of the House.
 I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. 
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
 Further consideration adjourned.—[Mr. Woolas.] 
 Adjourned accordingly at ten minutes to One o'clock till this day at half-past Four o'clock.